Citations

Abstract Objective To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise.

Abstract Objective To evaluate unmet needs among individuals with episodic migraine (EM) in the United States (US). Background Data are limited on the impact of headache frequency (HF) and preventive treatment failure (TF) on the burden of migraine in the US. Methods A retrospective, cross‐sectional analysis of 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted from an opt‐in online survey that identified respondents (aged ≥18 years) in the US with self‐reported physician‐diagnosed migraine. Participants were stratified by HF (low: 0–3 days/month; moderate‐to‐high: 4–14 days/month) and prior preventive TF (preventive naive; 0–1 TF; ≥2 TFs). Comparisons were conducted between preventive TF groups using multivariable regression models controlling for patient demographic and health characteristics. Results Among individuals with moderate‐to‐high frequency EM, the NHWS identified 397 with ≥2 TFs, 334 with 0–1 TF, and 356 as preventive naive. The 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey (version 2) Physical Component Summary scores were significantly lower among those with ≥2 TFs, at a mean (standard error [SE]) of 41.4 [0.8] versus the preventive‐naive 46.8 [0.9] and 0–1 TF 44.5 [0.9] groups; p < 0.001 for both). Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs, at a mean (SE) of 37.7 (3.9) versus preventive‐naive 26.8 (2.9) ( p < 0.001) and 0–1 TF 30.1 (3.3) ( p = 0.011) groups. The percentages of time that respondents experienced absenteeism (mean [SE] 21.6% [5.5%] vs. 13.4% [3.6%]; p = 0.022), presenteeism (mean [SE] 55.0% [8.3%] vs. 40.8% [6.5%]; p = 0.015), overall work impairment (mean [SE] 59.4% [5.6%] vs. 45.0% [4.4%]; p < 0.001), and activity impairment (mean [SE] 56.8% [1.0%] vs. 44.4% [0.9%]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs versus preventive‐naive group. Emergency department visits (preventive‐naive, p = 0.006; 0–1 TF, p = 0.008) and hospitalizations ( p < 0.001 both) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs group. Direct and indirect costs were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs (mean [SE] $24,026 [3460]; $22,074 [20]) versus 0–1 TF ($10,897 [1636]; $17,965 [17]) and preventive‐naive ($11,497 [1715]; $17,167 [17]) groups ( p < 0.001 for all). Results were similar in the low‐frequency EM group. Conclusions In this NHWS analysis, individuals with more prior preventive TFs experienced significantly higher humanistic and economic burden regardless of HF.